PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

Get PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments essay help

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Entire Course

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Discussion 1

Making Claims (graded)

Explain how you would teach the difference between subjective claims and objective claims (Moore & Parker, p. 4-5) to someone who had never heard of critical thinking. Give specific details in your answer.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Discussion 2

Cognitive Biases (graded)

Review the section of Chapter 1 on Cognitive Biases. Find an example of one of the biases, identify the bias, and explain the distortion it causes. You may choose your example from personal experience, something you have read, heard on the radio, or seen on TV or the Internet. Be sure to cite your source if needed.

ORDER an Original PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 2 Discussion 1

Premises and Conclusions (graded)

Let’s spend some time sorting out the premises and conclusions in some examples.

Choose one of the statements below. Your task is to identify the premise(s) and conclusion(s) of your example and to negotiate among yourselves if you disagree. Additionally, discuss whether the argument is inductive or deductive. If the argument is inductive, discuss the strength or weakness of the argument. If it is deductive, then discuss if it is valid. Keep mind that only a deductive argument can be valid.  This exercise works best if students do not all choose the first example. If one example has been well discussed, choose a different example to discuss.

Here are the examples:

1. Chances are I’ll be carded at JJ’s, because Kera, Sherry, and Bobby were all carded there, and they all look as though they’re about 30.

2. Seventy percent of all freshmen at State College come from wealthy families; therefore, probably about the same percentage of all students at State College come from wealthy families.

3. I am sure Marietta comes from a wealthy family. She told me her parents benefited from the cut in the capital gains tax.

4. According to Nature magazine, today’s thoroughbred racehorses do not run any faster than their grandparents did. But human Olympic runners are at least 20% faster than their counterparts of 50 years ago. Most likely, racehorses have reached their physical limits but humans have not.

5. “Let me demonstrate the principle by means of logic,” the teacher said, holding up a bucket. “If this bucket has a hole in it, then it will leak. But it doesn’t leak. Therefore, obviously, it doesn’t have a hole in it.”

6. We shouldn’t take a chance on this new candidate. She’s from Alamo Polytech, and the last person we hired from there was rotten.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 2 Discussion 2

Defining Terms and How We Do It (graded)

In this week’s lecture, we read about Socrates’ concern for defining undefined terms as the first step in critical thinking.

Choose one of the statements below. Your task is to determine how the term is used to define your chosen example, and whether the definition is by example, by synonym, by an analytical definition. If you experience difficulty in determining which method of definition is being used, describe the difficulty and try to negotiate agreement with other class members. This exercise works best if students do not all choose the first example. If one example has been well discussed, choose a different example to discuss.

And here are the examples:

1. Decaffeinated means without caffeine.

2. Steve Martin is my idea of a successful philosophy major.

3. The Cheyenne perfectly illustrate the sort of Native Americans who were Plains Indians.

4. Data, in our case, are bits of raw information collected from survey forms, which are then put in tabular form and analyzed.

5. Bifocals are glasses with two different prescriptions ground into each lens, making it possible to focus at two different distances from the wearer.

6. Red is the color we perceive when our eyes are struck by light waves of approximately seven angstroms.

The kinds of definitions you are looking for can be found at the bottom of page 78, top of page 79. You might also want to keep in mind some of the tips that are offered on definitions.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 2 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Discussion 1

Credibility (graded)

List as many relevant (and maybe irrelevant) factors as you can think of that people often mistake for signs of another person’s truthfulness. Perhaps you can tell a story about a notable example. Here is a starter example: the firmness of somebody’s handshake as a sign of their truthfulness (“Handshakes matter,” 2017).

Be sure to state if you think the method is relevant or irrelevant and if you can find any documentation to back up your position, please share it. Keep in mind that an opinion without support can be seen as a baseless opinion.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Discussion 2

Euphemisms and Dysphemisms (graded)

Report an example of a euphemism or dysphemism that you have come across. Discuss when it is and is not appropriate to use such veiled language. Common subjects for which people use euphemisms are death, physical appearance, and commercials. Common subjects for which people use dysphemisms are politics and news reports.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 4 Discussion 1

Inventing New Examples (graded)

There is a short list below of some of the most common fallacies that we meet in the Week 4 reading assignments. With your creative thinking caps on, invent (not find elsewhere but invent by yourself) a simple, clear, and original example of the fallacy you have chosen.  Write it up and bring it to the online discussion so that everybody can read it and discuss it.

Be sure to name the type of fallacy your example demonstrates.

Here is a short list of fallacies to use in making your choice, though you may use others described in the textbook.

• The Ad Hominem or genetic fallacy

• Strawman

• “Argument” from outrage

• Scare tactic

• Groupthink

• Red herring

• “Argument” from popularity

Have some fun with this. Your invented examples can be either realistic or a bit silly, but they need to clearly exhibit the chosen fallacy.

In the discussion thread, go ahead and speak to the examples that other students have brought in.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 4 Discussion 2

Baloney Detection (graded)

The astrophysicist Carl Sagan in his book The Demon Haunted World recommended that people be educated in a set of skills he called a “baloney detection kit.” These include such techniques as requesting facts to back claims and seeing whether a claim can be empirically tested. What techniques would you have in your baloney detection kit? Why would they help you distinguish logical and reasonable arguments from lies and nonsense?

[If you would like to see a video on the kit, here one, just under 15 minutes, that goes through the components https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&feature=player_embedded ]

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 4 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 5 Discussion 1

Working With Categorical Syllogisms (graded)

Below are sets of three terms. Use one of the sets to construct a valid syllogism. See if you can phrase the argument using the “Standard Form” (page 247-251) Explain how you decided on the statements for your syllogism. Be sure to see additional comments in the “start here” post for guidance.

A.        Dogmatists, theologians, free thinkers

B.        African nations, countries deserving military aid, upholders of human rights

C.        Pranksters, exasperating people, teenage boys

D.        Business attire, expensive clothes, necessary clothes

E.         Corporations, unethical businesses, businesses that are never punished

F.         Endangered species, animals needing protection, spotted owls

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 5 Discussion 2

Sound Arguments (graded)

A sound argument is deductively valid (correctly formed) and has all true premises. Moore and Parker (2015) discuss in chapters 8 and 9 several ways to evaluate the validity of an argument. Now it is your turn to apply the methods.

Go to a website that provides political opinion, such as the Huffington Post. Find a brief article that contains a clear, short argument. Make sure there is an actual argument, not an explanation or a reporting of facts. What you are looking for can be just a few statements in the article, not necessarily the whole article. Try to construct the deductive argument and state why you feel it is valid or invalid. If the argument is valid, evaluate the argument for its soundness. Keep in mind that only a valid argument can be sound. An invalid one is automatically unsound. Link the article at the end of your response by copying its Web address.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 5 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 6 Discussion 1

Inductive Reasoning (graded)

In America, we are bombarded by opinion polls. Such polls use the method of inductive generalizing from a sample, presuming that the answers given by a small number of respondents represent the attitudes of American voters as a whole. Do a search on the Internet for a recent opinion poll. Paste the results in your discussion response. Look at the report of the poll results and discuss how strong you believe these poll results are. Refer to such aspects of inductive generalizing as the sampling frame, how representative the poll sample was, and how biased the poll might be.

Please see comments in “Please Start Here” before addressing this discussion prompt.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 6 Discussion 2

Hypotheses (graded)

According to the Moore and Parker (2015), a hypothesis is “a causal explanation offered for further investigation or testing” (p.443). The book provides several methods for testing the quality of a hypothesis [See pages 363-367]. Choose one of the statements below and then use one or more of the three tests provided in the textbook to evaluate the quality of the hypothesis. Identify the hypothesis in the statement, and then say why it is or is not a good one.

1. There were objects flying everywhere in that room. Either an earthquake or ghosts could have made those objects move. Since there was no earthquake reported, it must have been ghosts.

2. Crop circles are complicated, symmetrical designs formed in grain fields through depressing grain stalks. Because of their complexity and symmetry, they cannot be natural phenomena. These crop circles appear overnight. Since it would take far too long and too much complex planning for one or two people to make these designs, which can be seen only from above, aliens from outer space must be making them.

3. The other day, I was walking in the mall and suddenly remembered an old school friend whom I had not spoken to in years. Not five minutes later, there I was face to face with my old friend. There must have been some deep karmic connection that drew us together that day.

4. Studies show that families who regularly eat their meals together have children who perform better than average at school. Clearly, communal family meals are essential to student success.

Moore, B.N. & Parker, R. (2015). Critical thinking (11th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 6 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 7 Discussion 1 Latest

Moral Reasoning (graded)

Attach a copy of your rough draft for your Course Project here. In the response box let your fellow students know that you are ready to receive their commentary. By no later than three days after the start of Week 7, post at least one peer review of a fellow student’s essay. Use the Peer Review form you will find in Assignments page this week. Write your answers using complete sentences. Be sure to answer every question. One-word or simple answers will not be considered satisfactory. Post your completed review as an attachment by responding to the post containing the student’s essay.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 7 Discussion 2 Latest

Chapter 12 in the textbook describes six categories of moral perspectives: Consequentialism, Duty Theory/Deontology, Moral Relativism, Religious Relativism, Religious Absolutism, and Virtue Ethics. Which category of moral perspective do you think best describes your method of making moral decisions? Provide an example to illustrate your choice.

This section lists options that can be used to view responses.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 7 Discussion, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Short Paper

Please complete the assignment, Facts and Opinions. You will be writing a paper evaluating a short article on a topic of controversy or interest. Please see the document Week 1 Assignment Directions located in Doc Sharing for full instructions.

Submit your completed paper to the Dropbox by the end of Week 1. As with all weekly written assignments in this course, it is most important to follow the directions carefully and sequentially.

Doc Sharing also contains a page of general directions that apply to all written papers for this course.

Language and communication are also important in this course, so take care to write as well as you can. Use the Spell Checking and Grammar functions on your computer. Word is the required format for everything you submit in this course.

Write your answer in a Word document and save it with a filename SurnameThinkingWeek1.docx.

For example, Chiquita Banana would name her assignment BananaThinkingWeek1.docx.

For this week, using the format provided will ease your way.

Submit your assignment to the Dropbox located on the silver tab at the top of this page

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Short Paper, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Short Paper

The written assignment for Week 3 is to write a short essay of two or three double-spaced pages after you have watched two televised newscasts of national news on the same day. One newscast is to come from a cable or satellite news network (examples being CNN, Headline, Fox News, CNBC, and MSNBC) and the other from one of the broadcast networks (examples being CBS, NBC, ABC, or Fox Network).

Please be sure to select national newscasts rather than your local city or regional newscasts.

You have your choice of which cable/satellite source and which broadcast source you choose. The half-hour newscasts are best for this exercise.

While watching, keep notes of the top three stories and the amount of time devoted to each of the three stories.

With your notes in hand, write your comparison of the two newscasts based on these four factors:

1. the top three news stories covered – whether they match or differ in the two newscasts;

2. the amount of air time given to each of those three stories;

3. any difference in the slant of the presentations of the three stories; and

4. anything you heard that affected the credibility of the people delivering the reports.

To conclude, how would you account for the similarities between the two newscasts in both selection and content of the stories?

Write your answer in a Word document and save it with a filename SurnameThinkingWeek3.docx.

For example, the late Walter Cronkite would name his CronkiteThinkingWeek3.docx.

Submit your assignment to the Dropbox located on the silver tab at the top of this page. For instructions on how to use the Dropbox

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Short Paper, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Quiz Latest

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 2 and 3) In Chapter 1, we learned how to recognize the main issue in a passage. Consider the following example:

“We have little choice but to concentrate our energy-policy efforts on renewable resources because we don’t have any idea how much longer fossil fuel sources will last.”

The main issue is whether or not

  • renewable resources will replace fossil fuels.
  • fossil fuels will last for the indefinite future.
  • we should concentrate our energy-policy efforts on renewable resources.
  • renewable resources are a practical alternative to fossil fuels.

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 2 and 3) In Chapter 1, we learned how to recognize the main issue in a passage. Consider the following example:

“Sure, some of the hotdoggers get good grades in Professor Bubacz’s class. But my guess is that, if Algernon takes it, all it’ll get him is flunked out.”

The main issue is whether or not

  • hotdoggers get good grades in Professor Bubacz’s class.
  • Algernon’s taking Professor Bubacz’s class will get him flunked out.
  • few students make good grades in Professor Bubacz’s class.
  • Algernon doesn’t make good grades in most of his classes.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 1 and 2) In Chapter 1, we learned how to recognize the main issue in a passage. Consider the following example:

“What we believe, we think is reasonable, and because of that agree to it. What we disbelieve, we think is unreasonable, and because of that disagree with it. Belief, therefore, and not reason, is the principle means by which most people come by their opinions.”

The main issue is whether or not

  • belief is a more solid means than reason to form our opinions.
  • belief is the principle means by which most people come to their opinions.
  • reason is a more solid means than belief to form our opinions.
  • reason along with belief is the best means for forming our opinions.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 1 and 2) In Chapter 1, we learned how to recognize the main issue in a passage. Consider the following example:

“The TV show The Sopranos might have been a pretty good series without the profanity that occurred all the way through it. But without the profanity, it would not have been believable. Those people just talk that way. If you have the characters speaking Shakespearean English or middle-class suburban English, then nobody is going to pay any attention to the message because nobody will see it as realistic. It’s true, of course, that like many other programs with some offensive feature whether it’s bad language, sex, or whatever, it will never appeal to the squeamish.”

The main issue is whether or not

  • programs with offensive features can appeal to the squeamish.
  • programs with bad language, sex, or violence are popular.
  • The Sopranos would have been popular without the bad language.
  • The Sopranos would have been believable without the bad language.

Question 5. Question : (TCO 4) In Chapter 1, we learned how to recognize cognitive bias which are psychological factors unconsciously affecting belief formation. Consider the following example:

One state legislature was taking up a measure to ban the use of fluoride in toothpaste to prevent cavities. Said one state senator, “Everyone knows that fluoride is a poison. Do we really want to be poisoning our kids every morning?”

The cognitive bias used is:

  • currency bias.
  • negativity bias.
  • overconfidence effect.
  • belief bias.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 1 Quiz Latest, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 2 Quiz

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 1 & 2) In Chapter 2, we learned how to recognize the main parts of an argument. A characteristic of the premise part of a deductive argument is

  • always true beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • not relevant to the conclusion.
  • supportive of the conclusion.
  • following the conclusion.

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 1 & 3) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of ‘soundness’. An argument is sound when

  • it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • there is enough support for the argument.
  • the premise of an argument is doubtful.
  • All the premise(s) of a valid argument are, in fact, true.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 1 & 2) In Chapter 2, we learned about the main parts of Inductive Arguments. The premises of good inductive arguments

  • are true beyond any possible doubt.
  • are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • support their conclusions.
  • neither answers nor support their conclusions.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 1 & 3) In Chapter 3, we learned how to recognize and clarify certain kinds of ambiguity. Consider the following example.

“Our wines leave you with nothing to hope for.” (from a Swiss menu)

How would you rewrite the following claim to remedy problems of ambiguity? Do not assume that common sense by itself solves the problem.

  • You will not ask for more of our wine.
  • Do not raise your hopes about our wine.
  • Our wines are as good as any you will find.
  • Our wines will leave you hopeless.

Question 5. Question : (TCOs 1 & 3) In Chapter 3, we learned how to recognize and clarify certain kinds of ambiguity. Consider the following example.

“Senator Smith spoke against cloning human beings during the last session of Congress.”

How would you rewrite the following claim to remedy problems of ambiguity? Do not assume that common sense by itself solves the problem.

  • Senator Smith spoke against cloning human beings.
  • Senator Smith spoke against cloning human beings while Congress is in session.
  • Senator Smith spoke against cloning human beings during the times that Congress is in session, but he favors it when Congress is in recess.
  • During the last session of Congress, Senator Smith spoke against cloning human beings.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 2 Quiz, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Quiz

Question 1. Question : (TCO 6) In Chapter 4, we learned how to assess the credibility of a claim. Consider this situation:

“Megan’s aunt says she saw a flying saucer. “I don’t tell people about this,” Auntie says, “because they’ll think I’m making it up. But this really happened. I saw this strange light, and this, well, it wasn’t a saucer exactly, but it was round and big, and it came down and hovered just over my back fence, and my two dogs began whimpering. And then it just, whoosh! It just vanished.”

How should Megan explain her Aunt’s statement? Megan should believe her Aunt

  • saw a flying saucer from another planet.
  • was making the story up just to get attention.
  • had an unusal experience but not a sighting of an exterrestrial space ship.
  • statement, plus the reaction of the dogs, gives credibility to the extraterrestrial theory.

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 7 and 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. Here is an example.

“Can Senator Morrison be believed when she says she will fight for the second amendment? You be the judge.”

The subtle hints undermining Senator Morrison’s credibility when it comes to her support for the Second Amendment suggest which rhetorical slanting device?

  • Dysphemism
  • Proof surrogate
  • Hyperbole
  • Innuendo

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 7 and 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. Here is an example.

“‘Democrat’ equals ‘ideologically homeless ex-communist.’”—Linda Bowles

The identification of a Democrat with an ex-communist suggests which rhetorical slanting device?

  • Hyperbole
  • Stereotype
  • Rhetorical definition
  • Rhetorical explanation

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 7 and 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. Here is an example.

A man who wants to buy a certain used car says this to his wife: “Okay, okay, so it’s got a few miles on it. Still, it may be the only classic Mustang in the whole country for that price.”

The phrase “it may be…?” suggests which rhetorical slanting device?

  • Euphemism
  • Innuendo
  • Hyperbole
  • Weaseler

Question 5. Question : (TCOs 7 and 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. Here is an example.

“Just when did you stop supporting the troops?”

Which rhetorical slanting device is being used is this passage?

  • Loaded question
  • Rhetorical question
  • Dysphemism
  • Euphemism

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 3 Quiz, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 4 Quiz

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 2, 7, and 9) In Chapter 6, we learned to recognize how fallacies of relevance are used to distract the audience from the real issue. Consider the following example.

“We are all sane, rational people here. As sane, rational people, you can clearly see beyond the hype and hyperbole of my opponent. I am confident that intelligent people like you will see that my tax policy will do far more for our country than his ever could.”

The fallacy of relevance trying to get the audience on the speaker’s side is

  • argument from outrage.
  • nationalism.
  • appeal to popularity.
  • apple polishing.

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 2, 7, and 9) In Chapter 6, we learned to recognize how fallacies of relevance are used to distract the audience from the real issue. Consider the following example.

“The healthcare system in America is just a way to steal good people’s hard-earned money. Everyone knows that.”

The fallacy of relevance used is

  • red herring.
  • argument from outrage.
  • appeal to popularity.
  • appeal to common practice.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 7 and 9) In Chapter 7, we learned to recognize the certain fallacies of defective induction. Consider the following example.

“The trouble with impeaching the president is this: Going after every person who occupies the office will take up everyone’s time, and the government will never get anything else done.”

The fallacy of defective induction which assumes that once we begin a policy we have to take it to an irrational extreme is

  • argument from envy.
  • perfectionist fallacy.
  • strawman.
  • misplacing the burden of proof.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 7 and 9) In Chapter 6, we learned to recognize how fallacies of relevance are used to distract the audience from the real issue. Consider the following example.

“If cigarettes aren’t bad for you, then how come it’s so hard on your health to smoke?”

The fallacy of relevance assuming the truth without offering proof is

  • circumstantial ad hominem.
  • genetic fallacy.
  • begging the question.
  • strawman.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 4 Quiz, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 5 Quiz

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 1 and 2) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical deductive logic. It is important to remember that categorical arguments have a specific structure and purpose. Consider the following question:

Categorical logic has been the principal form that the methodology of logic took for over 2,000 years, beginning with what philosopher?

  • Epicurus
  • Plato
  • Pythagoras
  • Aristotle

Question 2. Question : (TCO 4) Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical deductive logic. It is important to remember that categorical arguments have a specific structure and purpose. Consider the following question:

Each of the four standard-form categorical claims in categorical logic can be displayed graphically in a standard way using what logical tool?

  • Truth table
  • Venn diagram
  • Probability graph
  • Syllogism

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 1 and 3) Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical deductive logic. It is important to remember that categorical arguments have a specific structure and purpose.

Categorical syllogisms must have two premises and three terms: the major term, the minor term, and the middle term. Consider the following example:

No drugs are harmless.

All prescriptive medications are drugs.

Therefore, no prescriptive medications are harmless.

In this categorical syllogism, the minor term, the subject term of the conclusion, is:

  • harmless substances.
  • harmful substances.
  • prescriptive medications.
  • drugs.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 1 and 2) Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical deductive logic. It is important to remember that categorical arguments have a specific structure and purpose. Consider the following question:

Standard-form categorical claims all begin with one of a small set of words. Which is the correct set?

  • All, no, and some
  • Most, no, and some
  • This, that, and some
  • All, every, and many

Question 5. Question : (TCOs 3 and 4) In Chapter 8, we learned the basics of truth-functional logic. It is important to remember that the purpose of truth-functional logic is to determine which arguments are valid and which are invalid, and common invalid forms are known as truth-functional fallacies.

Consider the following question. Which of the following is a well-known truth-functional fallacy?

  • Affirming the consequent
  • Undistributed middle
  • Modus tollens
  • Modus ponens

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 5 Quiz, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Week 6 Quiz

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 1 and 5) In Chapter 11, we learned about three forms of inductive reasoning. Consider the following example. “I spent last night at that hotel and was never once bitten by a bedbug. There are no bedbugs in that hotel.” In this inductive argument, based on the speaker’s experience, which form of reasoning is being used?

  • Analogical argument
  • Causal argument
  • Generalization from a sample
  • Statistical hypotheses

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 1 and 5) In Chapter 11, we learned about three forms of inductive reasoning. Consider the following example.

“Japan has tight immigration laws and their economy is good. The same kinds of laws could work in the U.S.”

In this inductive argument, which form of reasoning is being used?

  • Generalizing from a sample
  • Analogical argument
  • Statistical hypotheses
  • Using a statistical syllogism

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 6 and 7) In Chapter 7, we learned how to identify inductive fallacies, which are arguments that offer only weak support for their conclusions because their evidence is either weak or biased. Consider the following example.

“Hardworking Americans need change now!”

The inductive fallacy being used is:

  • slanted question.
  • self-selection fallacy.
  • weak analogy.
  • vague generality.

Question 4. Question : (TCO 2) In Chapter 7, we learned how to identify fallacies related to cause and effect. These fallacies suggest a causal connection between two events, where no evidence for the causation is presented. Consider the following example.

“Studies show that when violence in the media is more frequent, violence in society is more frequent.”

The causal fallacy used is:

  • cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
  • common cause.
  • reverse causation.
  • proof by absence of disproof.

Question 5. Question : (TCO 5) In Chapter 11, we learned three principles for forming causal hypotheses. It is important to remember that these principles only suggest, but do not establish a causal connection. Consider the following example.

“There used to be no obesity problem in America. Studies in the past few years show that children nowadays are consuming significantly more calories than did children of prior decades. What children eat is a highly probable cause of increased obesity.”

In this causal hypothesis, the principle used is:

  • underlying cause.
  • common variable.
  • coincidence.
  • reverse causation.

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Week 6 Quiz, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Complete Course Project

(Week 5, 6 and 7)

Trends and Predictions

Objectives

This project fulfills the following objectives.

(TCO 5) Given a range of statistical and empirical data, combine several inductive methods of reasoning (argument by analogy, argument by generalization, causal reasoning, or probabilistic reasoning), to draw specific conclusions.

(TCO 7) Given a controversial social issue, write a persuasive essay to address the controversy, using identifiable types of arguments (deductive or inductive) and the resources of language, such as denotation, connotation, and figures of speech.

(TCO 8) Given a case scenario or a problem, formulate several alternative solutions and select the optimal one to apply under specific circumstances.

(TCO 9) Given several current news or opinion articles from print, radio, or television, assess the assumptions and values stated or implied in the articles and explain how these media can influence individual or collective decision making.

Project Overview

.equella.ecollege.com/file/e7411ef1-c5d9-4889-9091-68889120c6cc/1/PHIL447_CH_CourseProject.html#top”>Back to Top

This session, you will write a research essay, which is in APA format and includes a title page, abstract, and references list. The purpose of this paper is to hone your critical thinking skills by creating a suitable research plan, evaluating sources and arguments, and proposing solutions to a problem of current interest. The paper must focus on one of the topics below regarding current trends and future predictions.

  • Changes must happen in both human eating habits and food cultivation if the human race is to survive
  • The European Union will, or will not, last another decade
  • If lobbying and campaign finance in the US are not reformed, American democracy is doomed
  • How changes to marriage and family will change American society
  • How social media, web sharing, and/or similar trends in the internet will affect social and personal behaviors
  • What changes must happen because of the interaction between the world’s growing population and decreasing natural resources

Choose a topic from the list above. Follow your personal taste in this choice, but also search a library and a library database for suitable critical articles about the topic. For the paper, you will need to use at least five scholarly articles, authoritative sources, and/or book chapters.

The Final Research Paper must include the following.

  • Three to five pages of body and a References page
  • 12 pt. Times New Roman font
  • Double spaced
  • APA-style title page and abstract
  • All pages should be numbered
  • Should contain five sources (minimum)

Guidelines

.equella.ecollege.com/file/e7411ef1-c5d9-4889-9091-68889120c6cc/1/PHIL447_CH_CourseProject.html#top”>Back to Top

  • Select a topic from the list.
  • Research library catalog and databases for works about the topic (five articles and/or book chapters required).
  • Read the sources.
  • Propose a preliminary thesis or solution on the issue.
  • Write a proposal and outline for the project.
  • Format all documents using the APA Style.
  • Use feedback to shape and revise the paper.

Milestones

.equella.ecollege.com/file/e7411ef1-c5d9-4889-9091-68889120c6cc/1/PHIL447_CH_CourseProject.html#top”>Back to Top

In Week 5 you will choose a topic for writing your project. You will create a Project Proposal and Preliminary Formal Outline for the project to submit in the Drobpox at the end of Week 5. This is worth 50 points.

The Rough Draft of the project is due at the end of Week 6 in the Dropbox. In addition, the rough draft should be posted to the Peer Review discussion thread. Each student should complete two peer reviews using the peer evaluation form and post them to the discussion thread. The draft and peer reviews are worth 50 points.

The Final Draft, incorporating revisions suggested by your instructor and your peers, is due at the end of Week 7 in the Dropbox. The draft is worth 100 points and should be three to five pages, in APA format including title page, abstract, and references list.

Submit your assignment to the Dropbox located on the silver tab at the top of this page. For instructions on how to use the Dropbox, read these

.next.ecollege.com/default/launch.ed?ssoType=DVUHubSSO2&node=184″>step-by-step instructionsor watch this Tutorial

.next.ecollege.com/default/launch.ed?ssoType=DVUHubSSO2&node=232″>Dropbox Tutorial.

See the Syllabus section “Due Dates for Assignments & Exams” for due date information.

Best Practices

Select several variations on your topic and check to see if there are enough articles and/or book chapters about the topic to complete the assignment.

Read the materials and take notes.

Discuss your findings in the Proposal.

When in doubt, ask for your instructor’s opinion or approval.

.equella.ecollege.com/file/e7411ef1-c5d9-4889-9091-68889120c6cc/1/PHIL447_CH_CourseProject.html#top”>

Get nursing help on PHIL 447 DeVry Complete Course Project, from top-notch nursing essay writers. Order top nursing papers

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

PHIL 447 DeVry Final Exam

Question 1. Question : (TCO 1) “Thinking about thinking” is the definition of what?

  • Development of arguments
  • Measure of good sense
  • Development of critical skills
  • Writing for clarity
  • Critical thinking

Question 2. Question : (TCO 1, 2, 4) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term issue. The first order of business when it comes to thinking critically about an issue is:

  • formulating a proposal.
  • discovering what side you’re on.
  • determining exactly what the issue is.
  • realizing that all claims are equally valid.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 1, we learned the definition of the term argument. The purpose of an argument is to

  • explain complex ideas.
  • win adherents to a position.
  • refute the positions of other people.
  • support or prove conclusions.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 2, 3) In Chapter 2, we learned the definition of the term validity. An argument is said to be valid, if and only if, on the assumption that its premises are true, then it is _____ the conclusion is false.

  • Improbable
  • very unlikely
  • possible
  • impossible

Question 5. Question : (TCO 1, 2) In Chapter 2, we learned the meaning of the three modes of persuasion, as defined by Aristotle. Pathos

refers to arguments based on

  • logic and reasoning.
  • ethics and moral character.
  • emotions and passions.
  • experiment and observations.

Question 6. Question : (TCO 6) In Chapter 2, we learned how to analyze arguments. If we are having trouble identifying the conclusion, the reason is most likely because we have found

  • too many rhetorical claims.
  • not enough background facts provided.
  • not enough conventions of argument being followed.
  • that the passage is not an argument at all.

Question 7. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned about the key elements of an argumentative essay. An author of a good argumentative essay should do all of the following, EXCEPT

  • state the position on the main issue.
  • provide arguments that support the position.
  • rebut arguments that support contrary positions.
  • claim to speak with expertise based on qualifications or experience.

Question 8. Question : (TCOs 6, 8, 9) In Chapter 3, we learned the meaning of ambiguity and the difference between semantic and syntactic ambiguous claims. The precise meaning of syntactically ambiguous statement is one that is

  • vague and too general.
  • imprecise and lacking clarity.
  • not clear; it could have one or more words that have more than one meaning.
  • not clear; it could have two or more meanings due to a confusion in its structure or grammar.

Question 9. Question : (TCOs 2, 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 4, we learned how to assess the credibility of claims. An interested party who makes a claim is one who

  • has acknowledged expertise on the subject.
  • is generally more knowledgeable about a claim than others.
  • stands to gain from our acceptance of a claim.
  • has no stake in whether or not we believe claim.

Question 10. Question : (TCOs 1, 6, 7, 9) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. A stereotype is a generalization about a group based on a

  • random survey.
  • scientific survey.
  • little or no evidence.
  • categorization of similar people.

Question 11. Question : (TCOs 1, 7) In Chapter 5, we learned that it is important to recognize when a rhetorical slanting device is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. What factor identifies a loaded question?

  • It has a true premise and an untrue conclusion.
  • It requires an answer from you.
  • It is very persuasive based on true and accepted premise claims.
  • It disguises the correct answer.
  • It is based on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumptions.

Question 12. Question : (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 6, we learned that it is important to recognize when a fallacy of relevance is being used to influence our attitudes and beliefs. The inconsistency ad hominem fallacy points to a contradiction between the speaker’s argument and arguments or beliefs made by

  • opponents of the speaker.
  • people with more credibility than the speaker.
  • the speaker in the past.
  • scientists who have conducted research.

Question 13. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 8) In Chapter 6, we learned that which party is responsible for the burden of proof depends upon a number of factors. All things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on the party taking the

  • affirmative side of the issue.
  • negative side of the issue.
  • position neither for or against.
  • both sides of the issue.

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

Question 14. Question : (TCOs 1, 2) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate arguments from analogy. The best way to demonstrate the weakness of an argument form analogy is to show that the analogues are

  • more similar than stated or implied.
  • less similar than stated or implied.
  • found in the premises but not in the conclusion.
  • found in the conclusion but not in the premises.

Question 15. Question: (TCOs 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. Each standard-form of categorical logic has its own graphic illustration known by what name?

  • Overlapping regions
  • Block of exclusion
  • Johari window
  • Venn diagram

Question 16. Question : (TCOs 3, 4, 8, 9) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical logic. Two claims are equivalent, if and only if, under no circumstances

  • both are false.
  • one of them is true and the other false.
  • the truth of one transfer to the other one.
  • the conclusion is true if the premise is false.

Question 17. Question : (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned that the square of opposition is a graphic illustration of the relationship between the four standard-form categorical claims. In the square of opposition, the sub contrary claims are those where

  • both of the claims cannot be true.
  • both of the claims cannot be false.
  • the two claims have the opposite truth value.
  • the two claims have unrelated truth values.

Question 18. Question : (TCOs 2, 3, 4) In Chapter 9, we learned the basics of categorical Logic, including three categorical relations: conversion, contraposition, and obversion. In obversion, the claim is changed from a(n) _____ to a(n) _____ or vice versa.

  • universal; particular
  • positive; negative
  • valid; invalid
  • subject; predicate

Question 19. Question : (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. The purpose of studying samples is to generalize from

  • one sample to another in the sample population.
  • one sample to another in a different population.
  • all samples in and out of the population.
  • a sample to the whole population from which the sample is taken.

Question 20. Question : (TCOs 2, 5) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. A precise definition of the population and the attribute in question is known as the

  • random sample.
  • true proportion.
  • sampling frame.
  • sampling statement.

Question 21. Question : (TCOs 1, 5, 8, 9) In Chapter 11, we learned how to evaluate inductive generalizations based on samples. A biased sample denotes a sample with attributes

  • present in the same proportion as the population.
  • not present in the same proportion as the population.
  • characteristic of people with biased opinions.
  • found in a random selection process.

Question 22. Question : (TCOs 1, 2, 3) In Chapter 11, we learned about the meaning and function of three principles of causal hypotheses. If the co-variation principle states that variation in one phenomenon is accompanied by a variation in another phenomenon, then consider

  • other possible explanations for the variation.
  • the two phenomena may be causally related.
  • the two phenomena as the result of another underlying cause.
  • whether or not the variations are significant enough to form a judgment.

Question 23. Question :(TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about the nature of consequentialists ethical theories. Consequentialist theories assert that moral decisions should be based on the

  • motives and intentions.
  • feelings and intuitions.
  • outcomes and results.
  • religious commands and beliefs

PHIL 447 Entire Course Weekly Discussions And Assignments

Question 24. Question : (TCOs 2, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned the difference between religious relativism and religious absolutism. The guiding principle of religious relativism is the theory that what is right and wrong is based on the beliefs of

  • the particular religious affiliations of your culture.
  • the one and only correct religion, regardless of your culture.
  • those who have studied the sacred texts of their religion.
  • those who have critically evaluated the beliefs of their religion.

Question 25. Question : (TCOs 1, 6) In Chapter 12, we learned about the consistency principle, which states in part that, “If separate cases are not different in any relevant way, then they should be treated

  • different in all cases.”
  • different in most cases.”
  • the same in most cases.”
  • the same in all cases.”

Page 2

Question 1. Question : (TCOs 3, 6, 7, 9) Here is a passage that contains a rhetorical fallacy. Name the fallacy, and in a paragraph, explain why the argument is irrelevant to the point at issue. Here is your example for this question:

Someone says, “I have come before the board of supervisors to ask that you rehire Mr. Wildfire. I realize that Mr. Wildfire does not have a college degree, and I am aware that he has yet to finish a single project. But Mr. Wildfire is over 40 years old now, and he has a wife and two high-school-aged children to support. It will be very difficult for him to find another job at his age. I am sure you will agree.”

Question 2. Question : (TCOs 5, 8) In the example below, identify the presumed cause and the presumed effect. Does the example contain or imply a causal claim, a hypothesis, or an explanation that cannot be tested? If it does fall into one of those categories, tell whether the problem is due to vagueness, circularity, or some other problem of language. Also, tell whether there might be some way to test the situation if it is possible at all. Here is your example:

The movie No Country for Old Men was a big hit because reviewers gave it a good write-up.

Question 3. Question : (TCOs 2, 4) Explain in what way the thinking of the following statement is wrong or defective. Give reasons for your judgment.

Joining the military, like voting, is a major responsibility. Since 17-year-olds can serve in the military, it only makes sense that they be allowed to vote.

Question 4. Question : (TCOs 3, 9) Can a person belong to more than one culture at the same time? If so, does this create any logical difficulty for moral relativists?

Question 5. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Here is a short essay about an investigation.

Does jogging keep you healthy? Two independent researchers interested in whether exercise prevents colds interviewed 20 volunteers about the frequency with which they caught colds. The volunteers, none of whom exercised regularly, were then divided into two groups of 10, and one group participated in a six-month regimen of jogging three miles every other day. At the end of the six months, the frequency of colds among the joggers was compared, both with that of the nonjoggers and with that of the joggers prior to the experiment. It was found that, compared with the nonjoggers, the joggers had 25% fewer colds. The record of colds among the joggers also declined in comparison with their own record prior to the exercise program.

Here are also four questions/tasks. Write a paragraph to answer each one of them:

(1) Identify the causal hypothesis at issue.

(2) Identify what kind of investigation it is.

(3) There are control and experimental groups. State the difference in effect (or cause) between the control and experimental groups.

(4) State the conclusion that you think is warranted by the report.

Question 6. Question : (TCOs 3, 4, 6) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Another quality that makes [Texas Republican and former Congressman] Tom DeLay an un-Texas politician is that he’s mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-than-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the [Congress], it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior punishing pols for partisan reasons was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay’s specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I’m sorry to say, hated.

-excerpt from a column by Molly Ivins, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram

(1) What position does the author take on the issue at hand?

(2) If the author is supporting a position with an argument, restate the argument in your own words.

(3) What rhetorical devices does the author employ in this text?

A.

(1) Issue: Whether DeLay is mean and not in line with normal behavior among Texas politicians.

(2) Position taken: Delay is mean and is not like other Texas politicians.

(3) One claim defines “vindictive behavior” and then another claim is made that DeLay often behaves vindictively, whereas most other Texas politicians do not.

(4) “By and large” and “quite often” might be taken as weaselers. “The Hammer” is a dysphemism.

Question 7. Question : (TCOs 7, 8) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer the question in at least one full paragraph, giving specific reasons.

One day, out of frustration, your roommate rips several pages out of his or her textbook, rolls them up, and throws them across the room. You go to pick up the pages. “Leave them,” your roommate insists. “It says something. It’s art.” “It’s garbage,” you reply. Who is right?

Question 8. Question : (TCOs 6, 7, 9) Read this passage below. When you have done so, answer these three questions, writing a paragraph for each question.

Either one thinks that there is no reason for believing any political doctrine or one sees some reason, however shaky, for the commitment of politics. If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political “position” must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political position.

Your three questions are:

(1) What premises is the author using?

(2) What conclusions does the author come to?

(3) Does the passage contain any errors in reasoning?

Do you need Nursing Essay Help? Click to Order and Get a 5 % discount on an order above $ 20

error: